Timeline for Why is "tight coupling between functions and data" bad?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2022 at 22:27 | comment | added | user949300 | I also want a pink unicorn. Loose coupling breaks too, and you still need knowledge of each other. You just need that knowledge everywhere, whereas in OOP that knowledge is at least confined to one place. | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 13:08 | comment | added | GlenPeterson | Yes, I want that. But my experience is that when you send data to a non-trivial function that it was not explicitly designed to handle, that function tends to break. I'm not just referring to type safety, but rather any data condition that was not anticipated by the author(s) of the function. If the function is old and often used, any change that allows new data to flow through it is likely to break it for some old form of data that still needs to work. While decoupling may be the ideal for functions vs. data, the reality of that decoupling can be difficult and dangerous. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 15:31 | history | answered | Michael Durrant | CC BY-SA 3.0 |